India should go for the presidential form of democracy

Group Discussion
Points to remember before you participate in this discussion:
  • Assume you are one of the members of a real group discussion.
  • Take the initiative to participate and contribute your thoughts.
  • Contribute your positive thoughts towards providing the solution.
  • Post your thoughts here.
Discussion:
107 comments Page 1 of 11.

Bhoodev P Sharma said:   8 years ago
The concept of the Presidential form of democracy:

A presidential system is a system of government where a head of government is also head of state and leads an executive branch that is separate from the legislative branch. The United States, for instance, has a presidential system. The executive is elected and often titled "president" and is not responsible to the legislature and cannot, in normal circumstances, dismiss it. The legislature may have the right, in extreme cases, to dismiss the executive, often through impeachment. However, such dismissals are seen as so rare as not to contradict a central tenet of presidentialism that in normal circumstances using normal means the legislature cannot dismiss the executive.

Presidential systems are numerous and diverse, but the following are generally true:.

The executive can veto legislative acts and, in turn, a supermajority of lawmakers may override the veto.

The president has a fixed term of office. Elections are held at regular times and cannot be triggered by a vote of confidence or other parliamentary procedures. Although in some countries there is an exception, which provides for the removal of a president who is found to have broken a law.

The executive branch is unipersonal. Members of the cabinet serve at the pleasure of the president and must carry out the policies of the executive and legislative branches. Cabinet ministers or executive departmental chiefs are not members of the legislature. However, presidential systems often need the legislative approval of executive nominations to the cabinet, judiciary, and various lower governmental posts. A president generally can direct members of the cabinet, military, or any officer or employee of the executive branch, but cannot direct or dismiss judges.

The president can often pardon or commute sentences of convicted criminals.
(10)

Aditi said:   7 years ago
With over 7 decades of Independence and the Constitution promising food for all, shelter for all and education to all, we still have a long way to go. We are still held behind by the shackles of poverty, hunger, illiteracy and unemployment. Is it that the Government isn't taking steps towards it or is it that we Indians still don't understand what is going on around us and that we should take decisions wisely?

It can be termed as a rhetorical question but I believe that the people in power and the ones who desire for the power are in constant fights with each other and disrupt the implementation of any policy decided. Also, most of the department or wings of the Government are handed over to candidates who do not have proper idea or experience in that field. How can one take proper decisions on the education system if he/she is herself not educated enough to take them? There is bound to be flaws in such situations. Rather than adding any value to the nation or state, the ministers or the Government become a burden to the exchequer. And we, the citizens suffer. The dependency of different ministeries with each other also usurps the smooth flow of plans and policies. There is also instability and in continuity in the Government of our nation. Most People take positions of power by cajoling the poor and lower sections of the society, which again accounts for the majority of our nation, and do no work at all. And the backwardness of certain states of our country is a proof to this. I believe we should do away with Parliamentary form of democracy and start with presidential form of Government. The advantages of the latter should be told to people and prepare them for the same and also make them aware of how important it is to elect a person with the right qualities to run the nation.
(26)

Siddharth Singh Rawat said:   8 years ago
Indian democracy should definitely evolve now and embrace the presidential form of government. I say this because the need of the hour is that we start electing a commander in chief from whom we can demand accountability and doesn't have the excuse of hiding behind his party or blaming the opposition when he or she doesn't come through. The sad reality is that Narendra Modi will not be around forever. And history is witness to the fact that a political leader who holds himself accountable before the people on his own comes around once in a lifetime. The presidential form of government will force the BJP, Congress or any other central political party to put their best man forward (which they find ways and make excuses to avoid) or concede without participating and this will put an end to the Gath Bandhan politics that is destroying and further degrading the level of politics in this country, in the end forcing citizens of this country to make do with things and hence lose faith in the system and also in the political class if anyone ever had or there was any ever.

Moreover, we ought to know upfront who we are trusting our military and national security with as in most cases both at the state and the national level parties do not declare their candidate upfront and god knows we cannot have person like Manmohan Singh as our country's representative and commander-in-chief ever again.

With this, I rest my argument on why I strongly feel about a need for change in the present government structure.
(34)

Suyash said:   10 years ago
Hello friends,

1. The main benefit in the presidential form of system is direct voting. It is away from the dirty politics of the party which make alliance at very end time to get majority, or buying of leaders of other party to get majority. Critical mainly when competition is close or party is not getting clear majority.

2. So I think that in parliamentary system main leader is bounded by members of party, sometime members even quit the the party if they are not in favor of leader or their motive can be selfish. So we have to examine the whole party and examine the party of national level is difficult.

3. Any new candidate who is educated, who is generous and want to something for the country have to make party at national level which is very challenging and thus leads to misconception that student and common people should live away from politics.

4. In presidential system we have to examine only one person which is simple and away from shrewd politics of party.

5. Parliamentary system is good when all party member are good and united but there should be some system equivalent to presidential system which give direct opportunity to common people and students to fight some national level or state level elections without spending too much money on media and other corrupt resources etc. This will also not discourage the common people that nothing good will happen for this country and also two independent cross checking system with equal power distribution will do better.
(29)

Jug said:   10 years ago
Looking at the diversity of India, Presidential form is the only solution for quality leaders to enter parliament. That will ensure quality political talent to enter parliament. Our current parliamentary system has failed to let quality talent to reach parliament and had many shortcoming which prevent/discourage/impedes honest/capable talent to reach parliament. The talent sitting in our parliament is by enlarge very average, partly criminal, rarely capable. If we can do this it would revolutionize/accelerate India success story.

Parliamentary system will disconnect the executive from legislature. The root cause of a all corruption. If a member try to reach parliament with the objective of getting an executive seat (ministerial role). A conflict of interest exist there between a parliamentarian/legislature role and a ministerial role.

No elected member should be given right to take a ministerial position. Minister position should be given to qualified individuals with due process of selection, not election. It will ensure quality ministerial talent who have proper experience/knowledge of the subject to take decisions and lead the a specific ministry. Our current parliamentary system has given the nation very average talent at ministerial positions.

Presidential form of system with proper checks, will give us the quality talent for top executive job and quality ministerial talent.
(20)

Giya said:   8 years ago
India is a large agricultural country with 2nd highest population in the world, also with diverse languages, religions, social customs and traditions. At present time it requires lot of development not only at social political and economic level but also at strong executive and judicial level.

And for all these reasons I prefer parliamentary form of government. If we have peoples representatives at village level who know their custom and language well then I think they represent peoples problem well and also know where development is required and where is the best use of resources which government provide.

And as we know in parliamentary system their are opposition parties which stand and speak up against the wrongdoing polices and work of ruling party. I acknowledge that there are so much loopholes like corruption which slowdown the progress of our nation but we can remove it by stringent laws and by reforming our administrative system.

One among above discuss that we can elect governors in presidential form of government at state level. I appreciate this thought. But its not possible in this large country. Even a single state head like governor can't reach to people problems. It again requires 3 tier system like elections up-to panchayat level.
(37)

Tom Cruise said:   10 years ago
First of all.

Presidential system exists in USA (UNITED states).

Parliamentary system exists in India (Indian UNION).

Now if we compare the two geographical extents and the polity therein way back in the 18th century, the American revolution (1776-81). The revolution reflects that the people there were aware of their right to life and personal liberty (no taxation without representation) and the awareness that they can form their own government.

Even after independence they formed their 13 independent states with their own militia against the common enemy (British).

And now coming to India during this period the people of Indian geography were busy in conspiracies against each other, non awareness, 4 fold caste system, no liberal ideas no national feeling etc.

The framers of our constitution were well aware of all this; making reservation and other well framed rights and freedoms for WELFARE STATE because it wasn't among.

Concluding:

It will not be wrong to say that Indians are way behind the west the presidential/parliamentary system depends on the background. In fact presidential system is the next stage of parliamentary system.

So far so good PARLIAMENTARY AND NOT PRESIDENTIAL SYSTEM IS GOOD FOR US.
(8)

Shreya Kundu said:   6 years ago
I advocate for a presidential form of government for the following reasons:

1. President will be directly elected by the people of the country.

2. People can choose the presidents according to their integrity, leadership quality, honesty which is beyond doubt.

3. The total executive power will be visited or will be with the president, thus he can take decisions which is good for the country.

4. In the presidential form of Government majority or minority of the Parliament (Lok Sabha And Rajya Sabha) is not a factor, this can avoid midterm elections.

5. The financial power also will be with the president, thus can avoid delay of sanction of money for any good project of the country.

6. Even though our country is a Parliamentary form of Government of West Minister model (Britisher's model), but in the last general election in 2014, Narendra Modi fought the election in presidential form and he was projected as the supreme leader of BJP Nd was the star campaigner. Thus people of the country got the opportunity to choose their leader. As he was projected as the Prime Ministerial candidate for BJP.

By this. I conclude that.

" India Should Have A Presidential Form Of Government ! ".
(59)

Zubaida Ali said:   10 years ago
Guys, I believe that India should have a presidential form of government. The benefit of having a presidential form of government is that, the representative of the people i.e. the president will be chosen by indirect election. This will ensure that he/ she (representative) has a good educational qualification, does not have any criminal record and has to prove his ability before wielding power. Another benefit of having a presidential system is that India will remain free from party politics, which is very active in India.

At this point one may argue that, since is a diversified nation, the representative will not be able to represent the different sections of people. But then, why not? the different sections of people will be represented in the Lower House of the Parliament (Lok Sabha) and the different states of the Indian Union will be represented by the Rajya Sabha (Upper House of the Parliament).

The best example of Presidential system of Government is The USA. Today it is the most prosperous nation of the World. All credit goes to the Presidential System operating in the state.

I firmly adhere to the statement that India should have a Presidential form of government.
(24)

Aneesh said:   1 decade ago
Somehow, I have come to dislike the word "diversity". We are culturally and religiously diverse, no doubt, but shouldn't we limit our culture and religion to our personal lives and not let it leak out into public life? (will appreciate your views). Moreover, nowadays the word is used by politicians for dividing the society rather than uniting it. We are united because we are all Indians. I strongly advocate for presidential system of government because at least then the executive will be free from legislature. Political interference is the biggest hindrance for policy implementation.

In the present system of government, the buck stops with the prime minister-"one man"-head of the government. I don't remember him favouring a select group of people. We just have to make sure that the president does not do it as well, if at all we get a presidential form of government.

We have to ask ourselves, "do we want an educated and trained executive to run our country's administration, or let a group of educated people supported by a host of uneducated fools, who are bent upon dividing us, run it?".
(26)


Post your thoughts here:

Your comments will be displayed after verification.